Chapter XXV.—Of Christ’s Subsequent Manifestations of Himself to the Disciples, and of the Question Whether a Thorough Harmony
Can Be Established Between the Different Narratives When the Notices Given by the Four Several Evangelists, as Well as Those
Presented by the Apostle Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles, are Compared Together.

70. We must take up the consideration of the manner in which the Lord showed Himself to the disciples after His resurrection,
and that with the view not only of bringing out clearly the consistency of the four evangelists with each other on these subjects,
but also of exhibiting their agreement with the Apostle Paul, who discourses of the theme in his First Epistle to the Corinthians.
The statement by the latter runs in the following terms: “For I delivered unto
you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that He
was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the
twelve:15181518 Some editions read undecim = the eleven. after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this day, but some are
fallen asleep. After that, He was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one
born out of due time.”151915191 Cor. xv. 3–8. Now this succession of the appearances is one which has been given by none of the evangelists. Hence we must examine whether
the order which they have put on record does not stand in antagonism to this. For neither has Paul related all, nor have the
evangelists included everything in their reports. And the real subject for our investigation, therefore, is the question,
whether, among the incidents which do come under our notice in these various narratives, there is anything
fitted to establish a discrepancy between the writers. Now Luke is the only one among the four evangelists who omits to
tell us how the Lord was seen by the women, and confines his statement to the appearance of the angels. Matthew, again, informs
us that He met them as they were returning from the sepulchre. Mark likewise mentions that He appeared first to Mary Magdalene;
as also does John. Only Mark does not state how He manifested Himself to her, while John does give us an explanation of
that. Moreover, Luke not only passes by in silence the fact that He showed Himself to the women, as I have already remarked,
but also reports that two disciples, one of whom was Cleophas, talked with Him, before they recognised Him, in a strain which
seems to imply that the women had related no other appearance seen by them than that of the angels who told them that He was
alive. For Luke’s narrative proceeds thus: “And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus,
which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And
it came to pass that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus Himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes
were holden, that they should not know Him. And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one
to another, as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, said unto Him, Art thou only
a
stranger 15201520 [Tu solus peregrinus es, agreeing with the Greek text: “Art thou the only sojourner,” etc. But comp. Revised Version.—R.] in Jerusalem, and hast not known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And He said unto them, What things?
And they said unto Him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people;
and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and have crucified Him. But we trusted that
it had been He that should have redeemed Israel: and besides all this, to-day is the third day since
these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
and when they found not His body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, which said that He was alive.
And certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women said; but Him they saw15211521 Another reading occurs here, non invenerunt = Him they found not. not.”15221522Luke xxiv. 13–24. All these things they relate, according to Luke’s narrative, just as they were able to command their recollections and bethink
themselves of what had been reported to them by the women, or by the disciples who had run to the sepulchre when the intelligence
was conveyed to them that His body had been removed from the place. It is at the same time true that Luke himself reports
only Peter to have run to the tomb, and there to have stooped down and seen the linen clothes laid
by themselves, and then to have departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass. This notice about Peter,
moreover, is introduced previous to the narrative of these two disciples whom He found on the way, and subsequently to the
story of the women who had seen the angels, and who had heard from them that Jesus had risen again; so that this position
might seem to mark the period at which Peter ran to the sepulchre. But still we must suppose that Luke has inserted the passage
about
Peter here in the form of a recapitulation. For the time when Peter ran to the sepulchre was 215also the time when John ran to it; and at that point all that they had heard was simply the statement conveyed to them by
the women, and in particular by Mary Magdalene, to the effect that the body had been carried away. Furthermore, the period
at which the said woman brought such tidings was just the occasion when she saw the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And it was at
a later point that these other things occurred, connected with the vision of the angels, and the appearance of the Lord
Himself, who showed Himself twice over to the women, namely, once at the sepulchre, and a second time when He met them as
they were returning from the tomb. This, however, took place previous to His being seen by those two upon the journey, one
of whom was Cleophas. For, when this Cleophas was talking with the Lord, before he recognized who He was, he did not say expressly
that Peter had gone to the sepulchre. But his words were these: “Certain of them which were with us went to the sepulchre,
and found it even so as the women said;” which last statement is also to be understood as introduced in the form of a recapitulation.
For the reference is to the report brought first of all by the women to Peter and John about the removal of the body. And
thus, when Luke here informs us that Peter ran to the sepulchre, and also states how Cleophas mentioned that some of
those who were with them went to the tomb, he is to be taken as attesting John’s account, which bears that two persons
proceeded to the sepulchre. But Luke has specified Peter alone in the first instance, just because it was to him that Mary
had brought the earliest tidings. A difficulty, however, may also be felt in the circumstance that the same Luke does not
say that Peter entered, but only that he stooped down and saw the linen clothes hid by themselves, and that thereupon he departed,
wondering in himself; whereas John intimates that it was rather himself (for he is the disciple whom Jesus loved) that
looked at the scene in this fashion, not going within the sepulchre, which he was the first to reach, but simply bending down
and beholding the linen clothes laid in their place; although he also adds that he did enter the tomb afterwards. The explanation,
therefore, is simply this, that Peter at first did stoop down and look in after the fashion which Luke specifies, but to
which John makes no allusion; and that he went actually in somewhat later, but still before John entered. And in this
way we shall find that all these writers have given a true account of what occurred in terms which betray no discrepancies.15231523 [Luke xxiv. 12 is omitted by Tischendorf, on the authority of codices allied to the text of the Vulgate. The omission was probably occasioned
by the difficulties discussed above.—R.]

71. Taking, then, not only the reports presented by the four evangelists, but also the statement given by the Apostle Paul,
we shall endeavour to bring the whole into a single connected narrative, and exhibit the order in which all these incidents
may have taken place, comprehending all the Lord’s appearances to the male disciples, and leaving out His earlier declarations
to the women. Now, in the entire number of the men, Peter is understood to be the one to
whom Christ showed Himself first. At least, this holds good so far as regards all the individuals who are actually mentioned
by the four evangelists, and by the Apostle Paul. But, at the same time, who would be bold enough either to affirm or to deny
that He may have appeared to some one among them before He showed Himself to Peter, although all these writers pass the matter
over in silence? For the statement which Paul also gives is not in the form, “He was seen first of Cephas.” But it
runs thus: “He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once.”
And thus it is not made clear who these twelve were, just as we are not informed who these five hundred were. It is quite
possible, indeed, that the twelve here instanced were some unknown twelve belonging to the multitude of the disciples. For
now the apostle might speak of those whom the Lord designated apostles, not as the twelve, but as the eleven. Some codices,
indeed,
contain this very reading. I take that, however, to be an emendation introduced by men who were perplexed by the text,
supposing it to refer to those twelve apostles who, by the time when Judas disappeared, were really only eleven. It may be
the case, then, that those are the more correct codices which contain the reading “eleven;” or it may be that Paul intended
some other twelve disciples to be understood by that phrase;15241524 The text has, Sive alios quosdam duodecim discipulos Paulus, etc. In the mss. another reading is found: Sive alios quosdam duodecim apostolus, etc. = it may be that the Apostle Paul intended some other twelve to be understood, etc. or, once more, the fact may be that he meant that consecrated number15251525 For sacratum illum numerum, five mss. give sacramentum illius numeri = the mystical symbol of that number. to remain as before, although the circle had been reduced to eleven: for this number twelve, as it was used of the apostles,
had so mystical an importance, that, in order to keep the spiritual symbol of the same number, there could be but a single
individual, namely, Matthias, elected to fill the place of Judas.15261526Acts i. 26. But whichever of these several views may be adopted, nothing necessarily results which can appear to be inconsistent with
truth, or at variance with any one most trustworthy historian among them. Still, it remains the probable supposition, that,
after He was seen of Peter, He appeared next to those two, of whom Cleophas was one, and regarding whom Luke 216presents us with a complete narrative, while Mark gives us only a very brief notice. The latter
evangelist15271527Mark xvi. 12. reports the same incident in these concise terms: “And after that He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked
and went to a country-seat.”15281528In villam. For it is not unreasonable for us to suppose that the place of residence15291529Castellum. referred to may also have been styled a country-seat;15301530Villam. just as Bethlehem itself, which formerly was called a city, is even at the present time also named a village, although its
honour has now been made so much the greater since the name of this Lord, who was born in it, has been proclaimed so extensively
throughout the Churches of all nations. In the Greek codices, indeed, the reading which we discover is rather “estate”15311531Agrum = field, domain, as the equivalent for ἀγρόν. than “country-seat.” But that term was employed not only of residences,15321532Castella. but also of free towns15331533Municipia. and colonies beyond the city, which is the head and mother of the rest, and is therefore called the metropolis.

72. Again, if Mark tells us that the Lord appeared to these persons in another form, Luke refers to the same when he says
that their eyes, were holden, that they should not know Him. For something had come upon their eyes which was suffered to
remain until the breaking of the bread, in reference to a well-known mystery, so that only then was the different form in
Him made visible to them, and they did not recognise Him, as is shown by Luke’s narrative, until the
breaking of the bread took place. And thus, in apt accordance with the state of their minds, which were still ignorant
of the truth, that it behoved Christ to die and rise again, their eyes sustained something of a similar order; not, indeed,
that the truth itself proved misleading, but that they were themselves incompetent to perceive the truth, and thought of the
matter as something else than it was. The deeper significance of all which is this, that no one should consider himself to
have
attained the knowledge of Christ, if he is not a member in His body—that is to say, in His Church—the unity of which is
commended to our notice under the sacramental symbol of the bread by an apostle, when he says: “We being many are one bread
and one body.”153415341 Cor. x. 17. So was it that, when He handed to them the bread which He had blessed, their eyes were opened, and they recognised Him, that
is to say, their eyes were opened for such knowledge of Him, in so far as the impediment was now removed which had prevented
them from recognising Him. For certainly they were not walking with closed eyes. But there was something in them which debarred
them from seeing correctly what was in their view,—a state of matters, indeed, which is the
familiar result of darkness, or of a certain kind of humour. It is not meant by this, however, that the Lord could not
alter the form of His flesh, so that His figure might be literally and actually different, and not the one which they were
in the habit of beholding. For, indeed, even before His passion, He was transfigured on the mount so that His countenance
“did shine as the sun.”15351535Matt. xvii. 2. And He who made genuine wine out of genuine water can also transform any body whatsoever in all unquestionable reality into
any other kind of body which may please Him. But what is meant is, that He had not acted so when He appeared in another form
unto those two individuals. For He did not appear to be what He was15361536 The text gives, Non enim sicut erat, apparuit, etc. Some editions make it non enim aliter quam erat, sed sicut erat apparuit = for He did not really assume another form, but appeared in that which He had. to these men, because their eyes were holden, so that they should not know Him. Moreover, not unsuitably may we suppose that
this impediment in their eyes came from Satan, with the view of precluding their recognition of Jesus. But, nevertheless,
permission that it should be so was given by Christ on to the point at which the mystery of the bread was taken up. And thus
the lesson might be, that it is when we become participants in the unity of His body, that we are to
understand the impediment of the adversary to be removed, and liberty to be given us to know Christ.

73. Besides, it is necessary to believe that these were the same persons to whom Mark also refers. For he informs us, that
they went and told these things to the rest: just as Luke states, that the persons in question rose up the same hour and returned
to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and
hath appeared to Simon.”15371537Luke xxiv. 33, 34. And then he adds that these two also told what things were done on the way, and how He was known of them in breaking of bread.15381538Luke xxiv. 35. By this time, therefore, a report of the resurrection of Jesus had been conveyed by those women, and also by Simon Peter,
to whom He had already shown Himself. For these two disciples found those to whom they came in Jerusalem talking of that very
subject. Consequently, it may be the case that fear made them decline mentioning formerly, when they were on the way, that
they had heard that He had risen again, so that they confined themselves to stating how the angels had been
seen by the women. For, not knowing with whom they were conversing, they might reasonably be anxious not to let any word
drop from them on the subject of Christ’s resurrec217tion, lest they should fall into the hands of the Jews. But again, we must remark that Mark states that “they went and told
it unto the residue: neither believed they them:”15391539Mark xvi. 13. whereas Luke tells us that these others were already saying that the Lord was risen indeed, and had appeared unto Simon.
Is not the explanation, however, simply this, that there were some of them there who refused to credit what was related? Moreover,
to whom can it fail to be clear that Mark has just omitted certain matters which are fully set forth in Luke’s narrative,—that
is to say, the subjects of the conversation which Jesus had with them before He recognised them,
and the manner in which they came to know Him in the breaking of the bread? For, after recording how He appeared to them
in another form, as they went towards a country-seat, Mark has immediately appended the sentence, “And they went and told
it unto the residue: neither believed they them;” as if men could tell of a person whom they had not recognised, or as if
those to whom He had appeared only in another form could know Him! Without doubt, therefore, Mark has simply given us no
explanation of the way in which they came to know Him, so as to be able to report the same to others. And this, then,
is a thing which deserves to be imprinted on our memory, in order that we may accustom ourselves to keep in view the habit
which these evangelists have of passing over those matters which they do not put on record, and of connecting the facts which
they do relate in such a manner that, among those who fail to give due consideration to the usage referred to, nothing proves
itself
a more fruitful source of misapprehension than this, leading them to imagine the existence of discrepancies in the sacred
writers.

74. Luke next proceeds with his narrative in the following terms: “And as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst
of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you: it is I; be not afraid.15401540 The words Ego sum, nolite timere, are thus inserted. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled?
and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit
hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when He had thus spoken, He showed them His hands and His feet.”15411541Luke xxiv. 36–40. It is to this act, by which the Lord showed Himself after His resurrection, that John is also understood to refer when he
discourses as follows: “Then, when it was late on the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples
were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when
He had so said, He showed unto them His hands and His side.”15421542John xx. 19, 20. Thus, too, we may connect with these words of John certain matters which Luke reports, but which John Himself omits. For
Luke continues in these terms: “And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any
meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And when He had eaten before them, He took what remained,15431543Et cum manducasset coram eis, sumens reliquias dedit eis. and gave it unto them.”15441544Luke xxiv. 41–43. Again, a passage which Luke omits, but which John presents, may next be connected with these words. It is to the following
effect: “Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father
hath sent me, even so send I you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy
Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained.”15451545John xx. 20–23. Once more, we may attach to the above section another which John has left out, but which Luke inserts. It runs thus: “And
He said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled
which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened He their understanding,
that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And I send the promise of my
Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city, until ye be endued with power from on high.”15461546Luke xxiv. 44–49. [Many harmonists place this passage in connection with this appearance (evening of the Resurrection day); but part of it
may belong to the final appearance, or be a summary of the teaching during the forty days.—R.] Observe, then, how Luke has here referred to that promise of the Holy Spirit which we do not elsewhere find made by the Lord,
save in John’s Gospel.15471547John xiv. 26, xv. 26. And this deserves something more than a passing notice, in order that we may bear in mind how the evangelists attest each
other’s truth, even on subjects which some of them may not themselves record, but which they nevertheless know to have been
reported. After these matters, Luke passes over in silence all else that happened, and introduces nothing into his nar218rative beyond the occasion when Jesus ascended into heaven. And at the same time he
appends this [statement of the ascension], just as if it followed immediately upon these words which the Lord spake, at
the same time with those other transactions on the first day of the week, that is to say, on the day on which the Lord rose
again; whereas, in the Acts of the Apostles,15481548Acts i. 2–9. the self-same Luke tells us that the event really took place on the fortieth day after His resurrection. Finally, as regards
the fact that John states that the Apostle Thomas was not present with these others on the occasion under review, whereas,
according to Luke, the two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one, returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven assembled and
those who were with them, it admits of little doubt that we must suppose Thomas simply to have left the
company before the Lord showed Himself to the brethren when they were talking in the terms noticed above.

75. This being the case, John now records a second manifestation of Himself, which was vouchsafed by the Lord to the disciples
eight days after, on which occasion Thomas also was present, who had not seen Him up to that time. The narrative proceeds
thus: “And after eight days again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus, the doors being shut,
and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy
finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
Thomas answered and said unto Him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto Him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast
believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”15491549John xx. 26–29. This second appearance of the Lord among the disciples—that is to say, the appearance which John records in the second instance—we
might also recognise as alluded to by Mark in a section concisely disposing of it, according to that evangelist’s habit. A
difficulty, however, is created by the circumstance that his terms are these: “Lastly,15501550Novissime. [The Greek is ὕστερον, “afterwards,” not necessarily “lastly.”—R.] He appeared unto those eleven as they sat at meat.”15511551Mark xvi. 14. The difficulty does not lie in the mere fact that John says nothing about their sitting at meat, for he might well have omitted
that; but it does rest in the use of the word “lastly,” for that makes it seem as if He did not show Himself to them after
that occasion, whereas John still proceeds to record a third appearance of the Lord by the sea of Tiberias. And then we have
to keep in view the fact that the same Mark tells us how Jesus “upbraided them with their
unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.” In these words
he refers to the two disciples to whom He appeared after He was risen, as they went toward a country-seat, and to Peter, to
whom the examination of Luke’s narrative has shown us that He manifested Himself first of all [among the apostles],—perhaps
also to Mary Magdalene, and those other women who were along with her on the occasion when He was seen by them at the
sepulchre, and again when He met them as they were returning on the way. For the said Mark has constructed his record
in a manner which leads him first to insert his brief notice of the two disciples to whom He appeared as they went toward
the country-seat, and of their giving a report to the residue and obtaining no credit, and then to subjoin in the immediate
connection this statement: “Lastly, He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief
and
hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen.” How, then, is this phrase “lastly”
used, as if they did not see Him subsequently to this occasion? For the last time that the apostles saw the Lord upon the
earth was really the time when He ascended into heaven, and that event took place on the fortieth day after His resurrection.
Now, is it likely that He would upbraid them at that period on the ground that they had not believed those who had seen
Him after He was risen, when by that time they had seen Him themselves so often after His resurrection, and especially
when they had seen Him on the very day of His resurrection,—that is to say, on the first day of the week, when it was now
about night, as Luke and John record? It remains for us, therefore, to suppose that, in the passage under review, it was Mark’s
intention to give a statement, in his own concise fashion, simply on the subject of the said day of the Lord’s resurrection;
that is to say, that first day of the week on which Mary and the other women who were along with her saw Him after daybreak,
on which also Peter beheld Him, on which likewise He appeared to the two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one, and to whom
Mark himself also seems to refer; on which, further, when it was now about night, He showed Himself to the eleven (Thomas,
however, being excepted) and those who were with them; and on which, finally, the persons already instanced reported to the
disciples the things which they had seen. Hence it is that he has employed the term “lastly,” because the incident mentioned was the last that took place on this same day. For the night was now coming on by the time
that the two disciples had re219turned from the place where they had recognised Him in the breaking of bread, and had made their way into Jerusalem and found
the eleven, as Luke tells us, and those who were with them, speaking to each other about the
Lord’s resurrection and about His having appeared to Peter; to whom these two also related what had occurred on the way,
and how they came to know Him in the breaking of bread. But, assuredly, there were also there some who did not believe. Hence
we see the truth of Mark’s words, “Neither believed they them.” When these, therefore, were now sitting at meat, as Mark informs
us, and when they were talking of these subjects, as Luke tells us, the Lord stood in their midst, and said unto
them, “Peace be unto you,” as Luke and John both record. Moreover, the doors were shut when He entered among them, as
John alone mentions. And thus, among the words which, as Luke and John have reported, the Lord spoke to the disciples on that
occasion, this expostulation also comes in, which is instanced by Mark, and in which He upbraided them for not believing those
who had seen Him after He was risen.

76. But, again, a difficulty may also be felt in understanding how Mark says that the Lord appeared to the eleven as they
sat at meat, if the time referred to is really the beginning of the night of that Lord’s day, as is indicated by Luke and
John. For John, indeed, tells us plainly that the Apostle Thomas was not with them on that occasion; and we believe that he
left them before the Lord entered among them, but after the two disciples who returned from the
village had been conversing with the eleven, as we discover from Luke. Luke, it is true, presents a point in his narrative,
at which we may fairly suppose, first, that Thomas went out while they were talking of these subjects, and then that the Lord
came in. Mark, however, who says, “Lastly, He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat,” compels us to admit that Thomas
also was there. But it may be the case, perhaps, that he chose to style them the eleven, although one of the company was
absent, because the same apostolic society was designated by this number at the time previous to the election of Matthias
in the place of Judas. Or, if there is a difficulty in accepting this explanation, we may still suppose that, after the many
manifestations in which He vouchsafed His presence to the disciples during the forty days, He also showed Himself on one final
occasion to the eleven as they sat at meat,—that is to say, on the fortieth day itself; and that, as He was now on the
point of leaving them and ascending into heaven, He was minded on that memorable day specially to upbraid them with their
refusal to believe those who had seen Him after He had risen until they should first have seen Him themselves; and this particularly
because it was the case that, when they preached the gospel subsequently to His ascension, the very Gentiles would be ready
to believe what they did not see. For, after mentioning this upbraiding, Mark at once proceeds to subjoin this passage:
“And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.”15521552Mark xvi. 15, 16. If, therefore, they were charged to preach that he who believes not shall be condemned, when that indeed which he believes
not is just what he has not seen, was it not meet that they should themselves first of all be thus reproved for their own
refusal to believe those to whom the Lord had shown Himself at an earlier stage until they should have seen Him with their
own eyes?

77. In what follows we have a further recommendation to take this to have been the last manifestation of Himself in bodily
fashion which the Lord gave to the apostles. For the same Mark continues in these terms: “And these signs shall follow them
that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if
they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they
shall recover.”15531553Mark xvi. 17, 18. Then he appends this statement: “So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven, and sat on
the right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by
signs following.”15541554Mark xvi. 19, 20. Now, when he says, “So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven,” he appears probably enough
to indicate that this was the last discourse He held with them upon the earth. At the same time, the words do not seem to
shut us up to that idea absolutely. For what he says is not, “after He had spoken these things unto them,” but simply, “after
He had spoken unto them;” and hence it would be quite admissible, were there any necessity
for such a theory, to suppose that this was not the last discourse, and that that was not the last day on which He was
present with them upon the earth, but that all the matters regarding which He spake with them in all these days may be referred
to in the sentence, “After He had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven.” But, inasmuch as the considerations which
we have detailed above lead us rather to conclude that this was the last day, than to suppose that the allusion is
specifically to the eleven at a time 220when, in consequence of the absence of Thomas, they were only ten, we are of opinion that after this discourse which Mark
mentions, and with which we have to connect in their proper order those other words, whether of the disciples or of the Lord
Himself, which are recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,15551555Acts i. 4–8. we must believe the Lord to have been received up into heaven, to wit, on the fortieth day after the day of His resurrection.

78. John, again, although he tells us plainly that he has passed over many of the things which Jesus did, has been pleased,
nevertheless, to give us a narrative of a third manifestation of Himself, which the Lord granted to the disciples after the
resurrection, namely, by the sea of Tiberias, and before seven of the disciples,—that is to say, Peter, Thomas, Nathanael,
the sons of Zebedee, and two others who are not mentioned by name. That is the occasion when
they were engaged in fishing; when, in obedience to His command, they cast the nets on the right side, and drew to land
great fishes, a hundred and fifty and three: when He also asked Peter three times whether He was loved by him, and charged
him to feed His sheep, and delivered a prophecy regarding what he would suffer, and said also, with reference to John, “Thus15561556 Some editions read si = if I will, etc. But the best editions and mss. give sic, as above. And that Augustin read it so, is clear also from what occurs further on in Book iv. 20. I will that he tarry till I come.” And with this John has brought his Gospel to its conclusion.

79. We have next to consider now what was the occasion of His first appearance to the disciples in Galilee. For this incident,
which John narrates as the third in order, took place in Galilee by the sea of Tiberias. And one may perceive that the scene
was in that district, if he calls to mind the miracle of the five loaves, the narrative of which the same John commences in
these terms: “After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of
Tiberias.”15571557John vi. 1. And what should naturally be supposed to be the proper locality for His first manifestation to the disciples after His resurrection
but Galilee? This seems to be the conclusion to which we should be led when we recollect the words of the angel who, according
to Matthew’s Gospel, addressed the women as they came to the sepulchre. The words were these: “Fear not ye; for I know that
ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified. He is not here; for He is risen, as He said.
Come, see the place where the Lord lay: and go quickly, and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead; and, behold,
He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see Him: lo, I have told you.”15581558Matt. xxviii. 5–7. Mark presents a similar report, whether the angel of whom he speaks be the same one or a different. His version runs thus:
“Be not affrighted: ye seek Jesus of Nazareth which was crucified; He is risen; He is not here: behold the place where they
laid Him. But go your way, tell His disciples and Peter that He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him, as
He said unto you.”15591559Mark xvi. 6, 7. Now the impression which these words seem to produce is, that Jesus was not to show Himself to His disciples after His resurrection,
but in Galilee. The appearance thus referred to, however, is not recorded even by Mark himself, who has informed us how He
showed Himself first to Mary Magdalene in the early morning of the first day of the week; how she went and told them that
had been with Him as they mourned and wept; how these persons refused to believe her; how, after
this, He was next seen by the two disciples who were going to the residence in the country; how these twain reported what
had occurred to them to the residue, which, as Luke and John agree in certifying, took place in Jerusalem on the very day
of the Lord’s resurrection, and when night was now coming on. Thereafter the same evangelist comes next to that appearance
which he calls His last, and which was vouchsafed to the eleven as they sat at meat; and when he has given us his account
of that
scene, he tells us how He was received up into heaven, which event took place, as we know, on the Mount Olivet, at no
great distance from Jerusalem. Thus Mark nowhere relates the actual fulfilment of that which he declares to have been announced
beforehand by the angel. Matthew, on the other hand, confines his statement to a single occurrence, and refers to no other
locality whatsoever, whether earlier or later, where the disciples saw the Lord after He was risen, but the Galilee which
was
specified in the angel’s prediction. This evangelist, in short, first introduces his notice of the terms in which the
women were addressed by the angel; then he subjoins an account of what happened as they were going, and how the members of
the watch were bribed to give a false report; and then he inserts his statement [of the appearance in Galilee], just as if
that were the very event which followed immediately on what he has been relating. For, indeed, the angel’s words, “He is risen;
and behold, He goeth before you into Galilee,” were really such as might make it seem reasonable to suppose that nothing
would intervene [before that manifestation in Galilee]. Matthew’s version, accordingly, proceeds as follows: “Then the eleven
disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw Him, they worshipped Him:
but some doubted. And 221Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in
heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world.”15601560Matt. xxviii. 16–20. In these terms has Matthew closed his Gospel.

80. Thus, then, were it not that the consideration of the narratives given by others of the evangelists led us inevitably
to examine the whole subject with greater care, we might entertain the idea that the scene of the Lord’s first manifestation
of Himself to the disciples after His resurrection, could be nowhere else but in Galilee. In like manner, had Mark passed
over the angel’s announcement without notice, any one might have supposed that Matthew was
induced to tell us how the disciples went away to a mountain in Galilee, and there worshipped the Lord, by his desire
to show the actual fulfilment of the charge, and of the prediction which he had also recorded to have been conveyed by the
angel. As the case now stands, however, Luke and John both certify with sufficient clearness, that on the very day of His
resurrection the Lord was seen by His disciples in Jerusalem, which is at such a distance from Galilee as makes it impossible
for Him to
have been seen by these same individuals in both places in the course of a single day. In like manner, Mark, while he
does report in similar terms the announcement made by the angel, nowhere mentions that the Lord actually was seen in Galilee
by His disciples after He was risen. These, therefore, are considerations which strongly force upon us an inquiry into the
real import of this saying, “Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee! there shall ye see Him.” For if Matthew himself, too,
had
not stated that the eleven disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain, where Jesus had appointed them, and that
they saw Him there and worshipped Him, we might have supposed that there was no literal fulfilment of the prediction in question,
but that the whole announcement was intended to convey a figurative meaning. And a parallel to that we should then find in
the words recorded by Luke, namely, “Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall
be perfected;”15611561Luke xiii. 32. See above, Book ii. chap. 75, § 145. which prediction certainly was not accomplished in the letter. In like manner, if the angel had said, “He goeth before you
into Galilee, there shall ye see Him first;” or, “Only there shall ye see Him;” or, “Nowhere else but there shall ye see Him;”
unquestionably, in that case, Matthew would have been in antagonism with the rest of the evangelists. As the matter stands,
however, the words are simply these: “Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee; there shall
ye see Him;” and there is no statement of the precise time at which that meeting was to take place—whether at the earliest
opportunity, and before He was seen by them elsewhere, or at a later period, and after they had seen Him also in other places
besides Galilee; and, further, although Matthew relates that the disciples went away into Galilee into a mountain, he neither
specifies the day of that departure, nor constructs his narrative in an order which would force upon us the necessity of
supposing that this particular event must have been actually the first appearance. Consequently, we may conclude that
Matthew stands in no antagonism with the narratives of the other evangelists, but that he makes it quite competent for us,
in due consistency with his own report, to understand the meaning and accept the truth of these other accounts. At the same
time, as the Lord thus pointed, not to the place where He intended first to manifest Himself, but to the locality of Galilee,
where
undoubtedly He appeared afterwards; and as He conveyed these instructions about beholding Himself at once through the
angel, who said,” Behold, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see Him;” and by His own words, “Go, tell my brethren,
that they go into Galilee, and there shall ye see me;”—in these facts we find considerations which make every believer anxious
to inquire with what mystical significance all this may be understood to have been stated.

81. In the first place, however, we must also consider the question of the time at which He may thus have shown Himself in
bodily form in Galilee, according to the statement given by Matthew in these terms: “Then the eleven disciples went away into
Galilee into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them; and when they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some doubted.” That
it was not on the day of His resurrection is manifest. For Luke and John agree in telling us most
plainly that He was seen in Jerusalem that very day, when the night was coming on; while Mark is not so clear on the subject.
When was it, then, that they saw the Lord in Galilee? I do not refer to the appearance mentioned by John, by the sea of Tiberias;
for on that occasion there were only seven of them present, and they were found fishing. But I mean the appearance detailed
by Matthew, when the eleven were on the mountain, to which Jesus had gone before them, according to the announcement
made by the angel. For the import of Matthew’s statement appears to be this, that they found Him there just because He
had gone before them according to appointment. 222It did not take place, then, either on the day on which He rose, or in the eight days that followed, after which space John
states that the Lord showed Himself to the disciples, when Thomas, who had not seen Him on the day of His resurrection, saw
Him for the first time. For, surely, on the supposition that the
eleven had really seen Him on the mountain in Galilee within the period of these eight days, it may well be asked how
Thomas, who had been of the number of these eleven, could be said to have seen Him for the first time at the end of these
eight days. To that question there is no answer, unless, indeed, one could say that they were not the eleven, who by that
time bore the specific designation of Apostles, but some other eleven disciples singled out of the numerous body of His followers.
For
those eleven were, indeed, the only persons who were yet called by the name of Apostles, but they were not the only disciples.
It may perhaps be the case, therefore, that the apostles are really referred to; that not all but only some of them were there;
that there were also other disciples with them, so that the number of persons present was made up to eleven; and that Thomas,
who saw the Lord for the first time at the end of those eight days, was absent on this occasion. For when Mark
mentions the said eleven, he does not use the general expression “eleven,” but says explicitly, “He appeared unto the eleven.”15621562Illis undecim = those eleven. Luke, likewise, puts it thus: “They returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with
them.” There he gives us to understand that these were the eleven—that is to say, the apostles. For when he adds, “and those who were with them,” he has surely indicated plainly enough,
that those with whom these others were, were styled “the eleven” in some eminent sense; and this leads us to understand those
to be meant who were
now called distinctively Apostles. Consequently, it is quite possible that, out of the body of apostles and other disciples,
the number of eleven disciples was made up who saw Jesus upon the mountain in Galilee, within the space of these eight days.

82. But another difficulty in the way of this settlement arises here. For, when John has recorded how the Lord was seen, not
by the eleven on the mountain, but by seven of them when they were fishing in the sea of Tiberias, he appends the following
statement: “This is now the third time that Jesus showed Himself to His disciples, after that He was risen from the dead.”15631563John xxi. 14. Now, if we accept the theory that the Lord was seen by the company of the eleven disciples within the period of these eight
days, and previous to His being seen by Thomas, this scene by the sea of Tiberias will not be the third but the fourth time
that He showed Himself. Here, indeed, we must take care not to let any one suppose that, in speaking of the third time, John
meant that there were in all only three appearances of the Lord. On the contrary, we must understand him
to refer to the number of the days, and not to the number of the manifestations themselves; and, further, it is to be
observed that these days are not presented as coming in immediate succession after each other, but as separated by intervals
in accordance with intimations given by the evangelist himself. For, keeping out of view His appearance to the women, it is
made perfectly plain in the Gospel that He showed Himself three several times on the first day after He was risen; namely,
once to
Peter; again to those two disciples, of whom Cleophas was one; and a third time to the larger body, while they were conversing
with each other as the night came on. But all these John, looking to the fact that they took place on a single day, reckons
as one appearance. Then he identifies a second—that is to say, an appearance on another day—with the occasion on which Thomas
also saw Him; and he particularizes a third by the sea of Tiberias, that is to say, not literally His third
appearance, but the third day of His self-manifestations. Thus the result is, that after all these incidents, we are constrained
to suppose this other occasion to have occurred on which, according to Matthew, the eleven disciples saw Him on the mountain
in Galilee, to which He had gone before them according to appointment, so that all that had been foretold, both by the angel
and by Himself, should be fulfilled even to the letter.

83. Consequently, in the four evangelists we find mention made of ten distinct appearances of the Lord to different persons
after His resurrection. First, to the women near the sepulchre.15641564John xx. 14. Secondly, to the same women as they were on the way returning from the sepulchre.15651565Matt. xxviii. 9. Thirdly, to Peter.15661566Luke xxiv. 35. Fourthly, to the two who were going to the place in the country.15671567Luke xxiv. 15. Fifthly, to the larger number in Jerusalem, when Thomas was not present.15681568John xx. 19–24. Sixthly, on the occasion when Thomas saw Him.15691569John xx. 26. Seventhly, by the sea of Tiberias.15701570John xxi. 1. Eighthly, on the mountain in Galilee, of which Matthew speaks.15711571Matt. xxviii. 16, 17. Ninthly, at the time to which Mark refers in the words, “Lastly, as they sat at meat,” thereby intimating that now they were
no more to eat with Him upon the earth.15721572Mark xvi. 14. Tenthly, on the same day, not now indeed upon the earth, but lifted up in the 223cloud, as He ascended into heaven, as Mark and Luke record. This last appearance, indeed, is introduced by Mark, directly
after he has told us how the Lord showed Himself to them as they sat at meat. For his narrative goes on connectedly as follows:
“So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, He was received up into heaven.”15731573Mark xvi. 19. Luke, on the other hand, omits all that may have passed between Him and His disciples during the forty days, and, after giving
the history of the first day of His resurrection-life, when He showed Himself to the larger number in Jerusalem, he silently
connects therewith the closing day on which He ascended up into heaven. His statement proceeds in this form: “And He led them
out as far as to Bethany; and He lifted up His hands, and blessed them; and it came to pass, that
while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.”15741574Luke xxiv. 50, 51. Thus, therefore, besides seeing Him upon the earth, they beheld Him also as He was borne up into heaven. So many times, then,
is He reported in the evangelical books to have been seen by different individuals, previous to His completed ascension into
heaven, namely, nine times upon the earth, and once in the air as He was ascending.

84. At the same time, all is not recorded, as John plainly declares.15751575John xxi. 25. For He had frequent intercourse with His disciples during the forty days which preceded His ascension into heaven.15761576Acts i. 3. He had not, however, showed Himself to them throughout all these forty days without interruption. For John tells us, that
after the first day of His resurrection-life, there elapsed other eight days, at the end of which space He appeared to them
again. The appearance which is identified [in John] as the third—namely, the one by the sea of Tiberias—may perhaps have taken
place on an immediately succeeding day; for there is nothing antagonistic to that. And then He showed
Himself when it seemed the proper time to Him, as He had appointed with them (which appointment had also been conveyed
in the previous prophetic announcement) to go before them into Galilee. And all throughout these forty days, He appeared on
occasions, and to individuals, and in modes, just as He was minded. To these appearances Peter alludes when, in the discourse
which he delivered before Cornelius and those who were withhim, he says, “Even to us who did eat and drink with Him after
He
rose from the dead, for the space of forty days.”15771577Acts x. 41—the words, per quadraginta dies, being added. It is not meant, however, that they had eaten and drunk with Him daily throughout these forty days. For that would be contrary
to John’s statement, who has interposed the space of eight days, during which He was not seen, and makes His third appearance
take place by the sea of Tiberias. At the same time, even although He [should be supposed to have] manifested Himself to them
and lived with them every day after that period, that would not come into antagonism with anything
in the narrative. And, perhaps, this expression, “for the space of forty days,” which is equivalent to four times ten,
and may thus sustain a mystical reference to the whole world or the whole temporal age, has been used just because those first
ten days, within which the said eight fall, may not incongruously be reckoned, in accordance with the practice of the Scriptures,
on the principle of dealing with the part in general terms as the whole.

85. Let us therefore compare what is said by the Apostle Paul with the view of deciding whether it raises any question of
difficulty. His statement proceeds thus: “That He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen
of Cephas.”157815781 Cor. xv. 4, 5. He does not say, “He was seen first of Cephas.” For this would be inconsistent with the fact that it is recorded in the Gospel that He appeared first to the
women. He continues thus: “then of the twelve;” and whoever the individuals may have been to whom He then showed Himself,
and whatever the precise hour, this was at least on the very day of His resurrection. Again he goes on: “After that He was
seen of above five hundred brethren at once.” And whether
these were gathered together with the eleven when the doors were shut for fear of the Jews, and when Jesus came to them
after Thomas had gone out from the company, or whether the reference is to some other appearance subsequent to these eight
days, no discrepancy is created. Again he says, “after that He was seen of James.” We ought not, however, to suppose this
to mean that this was the first occasion on which He was seen of James; but we may take it to allude to some special appearance
to
that apostle by himself. Next he adds, “then of all the apostles,” which does not imply that this was the first time that
He showed Himself to them, but that from this period He lived in more familiar intercourse with them on to the day of His
ascension. Finally he says, “And last of all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.” But that was a revelation
of Himself from heaven some considerable time after His ascension.

86. Consequently, let us now take up the subject which we had postponed, and inquire what mystical meaning may underlie the
report given by Matthew and Mark, namely, that on rising 224He made this statement, “I will go before you into Galilee: there shall ye see me.” For this announcement, if it was fulfilled
at all, was certainly not fulfilled till a considerable interval had elapsed; whereas it is couched in terms which seem to
lead us (although
such a conclusion is not an absolute necessity) most naturally to expect that the appearance referred to would be either
the only one or the first that would ensue. We observe, however, that the words in question are not given as the words of
the evangelist himself, in the form of a narrative of a past occurrence, but as the words of the angel, who spoke according
to the Lord’s commission, and subsequently also as the words of the Lord Himself; that is to say, the words are used by the
evangelist in his narrative, but they are presented by him as a direct statement of what was spoken by the angel and by
the Lord. This, therefore, unquestionably compels us to accept them as uttered prophetically.15791579 [The discussion of the appearances of the Risen Lord is so clear and candid, that one must regret that it finds its conclusion
in the allegorizing exegesis of this section.—R.] Now Galilee may be interpreted to mean either “Transmigration” or “Revelation.” Consequently, if we adopt the idea of “Transmigration,”
what other sense occurs to us to put upon the sentence, “He goeth before you into Galilee, there shall you see Him,” but just
this, that the grace of Christ was to be transferred from the people of Israel to the Gentiles? That in preaching the gospel
to these Gentiles, the apostles would meet with no acceptance unless the
Lord prepared a way for them in the hearts of men,—this may be what is to be understood by the sentence, “He goeth before
you into Galilee.” And, again, that they would look with joy and wonder at the breaking down and removing of difficulties,
and at the opening of a door for them in the Lord through the enlightenment of the believing,—this is what is to be understood
by the words, “there shall ye see Him;” that is to say, there shall ye find His members, there shall ye recognise
His living body in the person of those who shall receive you. Or, if we follow the second view which takes Galilee to
signify “Revelation,” the idea may be, that He was now no more to be in the form of a servant, but in that form in which He
is equal with the Father;15801580Phil. ii. 6, 7. as He promised to those who loved Him when He said, according to the testimony of John, “And I will love him, and will manifest
myself to him.”15811581John xiv. 21. That is to say, He was afterwards to manifest Himself, not merely as they saw Him before, nor merely in the way in which,
rising as He did with His wounds upon Him, He was to give Himself to be touched as well as seen by them, but in the character
of that ineffable light, wherewith He enlightens every man that cometh into this world, and in virtue of which He shineth
in darkness, and the darkness comprehends Him not.15821582John i. 5–9. Thus has He gone before us to something from which He withdraws not, although He comes to us, and which does not involve
His leaving us, although He has preceded us thither. That will be a revelation which may be spoken of as a true Galilee, when
we shall be like Him; there shall we see Him as He is.158315831 John iii. 2. Then, also, will there be for us the more blessed transmigration, from this world into that eternity, if we embrace His precepts
so as to be counted worthy of being set apart on His right hand. For there, those on the left hand shall go away into eternal
burning, but the righteous into life eternal.15841584Matt. xxv. 33–46. Hence they shall pass thither, and there, shall they see Him, as the wicked do not see Him. For the wicked shall be taken
away, so that he shall not see the brightness of the Lord;15851585Isa. xxvi. 10. and the unrighteousness shall not see the light. For He says, “And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only
true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent;”15861586John xviii. 3. even as He shall be known in that eternity to which He will bring His servants by the form of a servant, in order that in
liberty they may contemplate the form of the Lord.

1523 [Luke xxiv. 12 is omitted by Tischendorf, on the authority of codices allied to the text of the Vulgate. The omission was probably occasioned
by the difficulties discussed above.—R.]

1524 The text has, Sive alios quosdam duodecim discipulos Paulus, etc. In the mss. another reading is found: Sive alios quosdam duodecim apostolus, etc. = it may be that the Apostle Paul intended some other twelve to be understood, etc.

1536 The text gives, Non enim sicut erat, apparuit, etc. Some editions make it non enim aliter quam erat, sed sicut erat apparuit = for He did not really assume another form, but appeared in that which He had.

1546Luke xxiv. 44–49. [Many harmonists place this passage in connection with this appearance (evening of the Resurrection day); but part of it
may belong to the final appearance, or be a summary of the teaching during the forty days.—R.]